I thought that article regarding the "superhero bubble" nailed it. Honestly, people are tired of reboots. You can't go James Bond on every single character. These characters cannot be continuously updated or reinvented every 4-5 years as is the case with Bond. I think rebooting a Batman to fit Justice League is another money grab that the general public will see right through, especially after Avengers. I don't expect the genre to grow too much from here, with all the rising production costs. Disney is what, 8-9 billion dollars in the hole as it is with Marvel/Star Wars acquisitions. They are going to have to invest another 5 billion more (between Avengers, SW, solo films, spinoffs, and other property related investments) before they can turn those returns into a good 20-30 billion dollar return over the next 20-30 years. So eventually it pays off, but it ain't paying off at this minute. After Avengers 3 and the Star Wars trilogy, which are going to have to be 5-6 billion dollar franchises with the trilogies and spinoffs alone, Disney will have the same Harry Potter problem that WB has going for it right now. Until the next big thing, and no one can honestly say what that is right now, if it even exists today. I think it will be video games though. Mario, Zelda, Warcraft, Halo, I don't care how unoriginal the concepts are. They are mega properties and the geeks will want to pass that legacy down to their children, especially since console games are falling out of favor with people moving toward more trendier apps and smart phone platforms for gaming/entertainment.

I thought that article regarding the "superhero bubble" nailed it. Honestly, people are tired of reboots. You can't go James Bond on every single character. These characters cannot be continuously updated or reinvented every 4-5 years as is the case with Bond. I think rebooting a Batman to fit Justice League is another money grab that the general public will see right through, especially after Avengers. I don't expect the genre to grow too much from here, with all the rising production costs. Disney is what, 8-9 billion dollars in the hole as it is with Marvel/Star Wars acquisitions. They are going to have to invest another 5 billion more (between Avengers, SW, solo films, spinoffs, and other property related investments) before they can turn those returns into a good 20-30 billion dollar return over the next 20-30 years. So eventually it pays off, but it ain't paying off at this minute. After Avengers 3 and the Star Wars trilogy, which are going to have to be 5-6 billion dollar franchises with the trilogies and spinoffs alone, Disney will have the same Harry Potter problem that WB has going for it right now. Until the next big thing, and no one can honestly say what that is right now, if it even exists today.

Disney purchased Marvel for something like $4B and they have already made about $3B in profit as of The Avengers. IM3 will push them past the $4B mark and this doesn't even speak to merchandising, which I am sure is performing quite nicely for Disney. That article is waaay off base.

I thought that article regarding the "superhero bubble" nailed it. Honestly, people are tired of reboots. You can't go James Bond on every single character. These characters cannot be continuously updated or reinvented every 4-5 years as is the case with Bond. I think rebooting a Batman to fit Justice League is another money grab that the general public will see right through, especially after Avengers. I don't expect the genre to grow too much from here, with all the rising production costs. Disney is what, 8-9 billion dollars in the hole as it is with Marvel/Star Wars acquisitions. They are going to have to invest another 5 billion more (between Avengers, SW, solo films, spinoffs, and other property related investments) before they can turn those returns into a good 20-30 billion dollar return over the next 20-30 years. So eventually it pays off, but it ain't paying off at this minute. After Avengers 3 and the Star Wars trilogy, which are going to have to be 5-6 billion dollar franchises with the trilogies and spinoffs alone, Disney will have the same Harry Potter problem that WB has going for it right now. Until the next big thing, and no one can honestly say what that is right now, if it even exists today. I think it will be video games though. Mario, Zelda, Warcraft, Halo, I don't care how unoriginal the concepts are. They are mega properties and the geeks will want to pass that legacy down to their children, especially since console games are falling out of favor with people moving toward more trendier apps and smart phone platforms for gaming/entertainment.

I've said the same thing on the Justice League thread, and pretty much people have been roped in by every false rumor that has come out.

However, I will say that I think there is new and original stuff that can be done with the material, and GOTG is a good example. In no way is GOTG a "superhero film". In fact it might be more along the lines of Men in Black, or something of that nature.

People will grow tired of Superheroes if people keep doing the same old thing over and over.

__________________There was an idea, to bring together a group of remarkable people, to see if we could become something more, so when they needed us, we could fight the battles, that they never could.

Disney purchased Marvel for something like $4B and they have already made about $3B in profit as of The Avengers. IM3 will push them past the $4B mark and this doesn't even speak to merchandising, which I am sure is performing quite nicely for Disney. That article is waaay off base.

How do you factor those figures in? Are you marking off marketing costs? Distributor costs? Commission for theatre chains? Foreign market distribution? Convenient to add up WW numbers from box office mojo, but Disney accountants don't add it up that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Stark

I've said the same thing on the Justice League thread, and pretty much people have been roped in by every false rumor that has come out.

However, I will say that I think there is new and original stuff that can be done with the material, and GOTG is a good example. In no way is GOTG a "superhero film". In fact it might be more along the lines of Men in Black, or something of that nature.

People will grow tired of Superheroes if people keep doing the same old thing over and over.

After we get some real numbers for Cap, Thor, GotG, then we will know if Marvel is really another Pixar, or just a one trick pony. I think those movies will be successful, but what amounts to a success these days? Is New Line really happy with 300 domestic from the Hobbit? If those numbers are accurate and they are 5 billion in debt, the Hobbit trilogy isn't paying for that, and WB will have to cut their losses and dump that subsidiary if the Hobbit does not recover to deliver outrageous box office numbers, assuming New Line can no longer deliver anything else.

I thought that article regarding the "superhero bubble" nailed it. Honestly, people are tired of reboots. You can't go James Bond on every single character. These characters cannot be continuously updated or reinvented every 4-5 years as is the case with Bond. I think rebooting a Batman to fit Justice League is another money grab that the general public will see right through, especially after Avengers. I don't expect the genre to grow too much from here, with all the rising production costs. Disney is what, 8-9 billion dollars in the hole as it is with Marvel/Star Wars acquisitions. They are going to have to invest another 5 billion more (between Avengers, SW, solo films, spinoffs, and other property related investments) before they can turn those returns into a good 20-30 billion dollar return over the next 20-30 years. So eventually it pays off, but it ain't paying off at this minute. After Avengers 3 and the Star Wars trilogy, which are going to have to be 5-6 billion dollar franchises with the trilogies and spinoffs alone, Disney will have the same Harry Potter problem that WB has going for it right now. Until the next big thing, and no one can honestly say what that is right now, if it even exists today. I think it will be video games though. Mario, Zelda, Warcraft, Halo, I don't care how unoriginal the concepts are. They are mega properties and the geeks will want to pass that legacy down to their children, especially since console games are falling out of favor with people moving toward more trendier apps and smart phone platforms for gaming/entertainment.

See, superhero movies are not a fad, are a genre, a genre meant to have its ups and down. We migth live now the golde age of comic book movies, but it doesn't means that they will dissapear or will stop being good, just that they will find a point of equilibrium, and therefore we will continue to see them.

__________________The thirst is temporal, the Hype is forever.“Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think.”
-La Bruyere.

Superhero movies aren't even a genre; they can't be classified like Westerns, for example. If IM3 and Nolan's Batman movies showed us anything it's that "superhero" movies can be used to tell ANY kind of genre or story, the elements are just more fantastical which works for big screen spectacle. And that looks to be the case going forward in phase 2. We have a fantasy adventure akin to LotR, Narnia, or something like that in Thor. We have a conspiracy political thriller in Cap. And we have a space epic in Guardians. I think the only real, meat and bones "superhero-y" of the movies will be Avengers 2.

Superhero movies aren't even a genre; they can't be classified like Westerns, for example. If IM3 and Nolan's Batman movies showed us anything it's that "superhero" movies can be used to tell ANY kind of genre or story, the elements are just more fantastical which works for big screen spectacle. And that looks to be the case going forward in phase 2. We have a fantasy adventure akin to LotR, Narnia, or something like that in Thor. We have a conspiracy political thriller in Cap. And we have a space epic in Guardians. I think the only real, meat and bones "superhero-y" of the movies will be Avengers 2.

So essentially you want to throw the comic book genre into one amalgam that falls under each of those categories. Only, the 90's style action movie has declined. Scrap the gritty characters like Luke Cage and other "grounded" characters besides Batman. The fantasy genre, I don't know how you are eclipsing LotR any time soon. Narnia declined, and declined fast. It was supposed to be another Harry Potter. It wasn't. Sci-Fi. We aren't talking about hard core sci-fi like Aliens or Prometheus. Those genre movies have a select target audience and cater to mature audiences. And they have been rather hit and miss in recent years. GotG is more campy sci-fi. Green Lantern was awful. John Carter was awful. The only thing GotG has going for it is the Marvel logo. Any other studio touching that property has fail all over it.

How many sub-studios have 2 movies that made over 1.1 billion? NONE, other than Marvel.

Pixar doesn't even have one and Marvel Studios is just getting warmed up. By the time Avengers 3 is out they'll probably have half-a-dozen at least.

The superhero genre is the best thing Hollywood has going for the last decade. They aren't going anywhere.

Hollywood loves them because they have millions of built-in fans, the general audience is always hungry for more, and if they are well executed they make huge profits in every kind of merchandise.

People have been declaring the end of the genre since 2004. We're approaching 2014 and it just gets stronger and more dominant every day.

When a non-RDJ movie eclipses the 500 million mark, we can call them something other than a one trick pony. Right now it's all about Tony Stark. DC has yet to prove themselves outside of Batman, but luckily they have another larger than life superhero in their stable. Marvel Studios does not have that at the moment. I think 500 million is a reasonable number for Thor 2. If it can't hit that, it's a cause for concern. I don't think it hits that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juicy J

Wait, what's the other movie besides the Avengers that's made over 1.1 billion?

So essentially you want to throw the comic book genre into one amalgam that falls under each of those categories. Only, the 90's style action movie has declined. Scrap the gritty characters like Luke Cage and other "grounded" characters besides Batman. The fantasy genre, I don't know how you are eclipsing LotR any time soon. Narnia declined, and declined fast. It was supposed to be another Harry Potter. It wasn't. Sci-Fi. We aren't talking about hard core sci-fi like Aliens or Prometheus. Those genre movies have a select target audience and cater to mature audiences. And they have been rather hit and miss in recent years. GotG is more campy sci-fi. Green Lantern was awful. John Carter was awful. The only thing GotG has going for it is the Marvel logo. Any other studio touching that property has fail all over it.

Wow just so many holes in both your posts I honestly don't know where to start. Ignoring your first post which had a lot of lapses in logic, your first sentence is exactly what I'm saying. These superhero films offer far more spectacle than "90's action style movies" and are honestly nothing like them so I have no idea why you brought that stupid comparison up. Thor doesn't have to eclipse LotR or anything, $500-700m is a huge success by anyone's standard, I only brought those films up as an example of how these movies can dabble in different genres. If you think the only way Thor can be successful is by outdoing LotR then you're full of it. And comparing GotG to Green Lantern and John Carter is just plain ridiculous, it will be nothing like either of those films, neither of which are actually space epics. Honestly that statement just shows you're talking with half-baked knowledge.

You might as well say every genre is dead going off your post. You can try and poke holes at all these genres if you want to, it doesn't change my point. Superhero films themselves cannot be hobbled into one singular genre and called a bubble. There is far too much variety and history to them to bastardize them like that. Even if films like Avengers, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Superman etc become unpopular one day (a day that is very far off right now, and would only last a couple years at best anyway) there are a thousand other things Marvel and DC can fall back on to still make "superhero" movies. Horror with Man-Thing/Swamp Thing/Constantine, martial arts with Iron Fist, magic with Doctor Strange/Zatanna etc etc etc.

People who think this thing is just going to pop and go away are very much looking at this with a narrow-mind and most of the time I see them using outdated precedents to come to this conclusion. These movie are, quite literally, NEVER going to stop, for very obvious reasons, and I doubt they ever become so unpopular or stigmatized enough to where they can't make more superhero films 3-4 years after MAYBE giving them a rest. We live in a very very different world than when Batman and Robin single-handedly killed the genre for a couple years and Marvel was at the mercy of external movie studios. Marvel are self-producing their films now, and the entire reason Disney bought them was so they could do that. They're not ever going to just stop making movies. And the only other studios outside of Disney and WB who own superhero rights are contractually obligated to put out Spider-Man and X-Men films ever 2-3 years or they lose the rights. Very different times.

Also your argument about Disney being in the hole is just silly. You completely disregard where their REAL profits come from: Merchandising. This is where the big bucks are at. Disney probably makes many time more money off of merchandising than the actual BO gross. When you see a film gross $1b+ you're actually looking at more like $3b+, and that may be conservative considering just how much of a goldmine Marvel/DC characters are in terms of merchandise. And Disney makes money off of Spider-Man merchandise as well without even having to make the movies. They've probably already made back their $4b in spades by now.

Wow just so many holes in both your posts I honestly don't know where to start. Ignoring your first post which had a lot of lapses in logic, your first sentence is exactly what I'm saying. These superhero films offer far more spectacle than "90's action style movies" and are honestly nothing like them so I have no idea why you brought that stupid comparison up. Thor doesn't have to eclipse LotR or anything, $500-700m is a huge success by anyone's standard, I only brought those films up as an example of how these movies can dabble in different genres. If you think the only way Thor can be successful is by outdoing LotR then you're full of it. And comparing GotG to Green Lantern and John Carter is just plain ridiculous, it will be nothing like either of those films, neither of which are actually space epics. Honestly that statement just shows you're talking with half-baked knowledge.

You might as well say every genre is dead going off your post. You can try and poke holes at all these genres if you want to, it doesn't change my point. Superhero films themselves cannot be hobbled into one singular genre and called a bubble. There is far too much variety and history to them to bastardize them like that. Even if films like Avengers, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Superman etc become unpopular one day (a day that is very far off right now, and would only last a couple years at best anyway) there are a thousand other things Marvel and DC can fall back on to still make "superhero" movies. Horror with Man-Thing/Swamp Thing/Constantine, martial arts with Iron Fist, magic with Doctor Strange/Zatanna etc etc etc.

People who think this thing is just going to pop and go away are very much looking at this with a narrow-mind and most of the time I see them using outdated precedents to come to this conclusion. These movie are, quite literally, NEVER going to stop, for very obvious reasons, and I doubt they ever become so unpopular or stigmatized enough to where they can't make more superhero films 3-4 years after MAYBE giving them a rest. We live in a very very different world than when Batman and Robin single-handedly killed the genre for a couple years and Marvel was at the mercy of external movie studios. Marvel are self-producing their films now, and the entire reason Disney bought them was so they could do that. They're not ever going to just stop making movies. And the only other studios outside of Disney and WB who own superhero rights are contractually obligated to put out Spider-Man and X-Men films ever 2-3 years or they lose the rights. Very different times.

You brought up westerns, I brought up 90's themed action movies. That was the thing back in my day. The spectacle movies. Con-Air, The Rock, Face/Off, movies with Expendables actors. They were the must see movies for teenage boys. Not anymore. Movies like Bourne have come in their place. It hasn't proven to be cyclic. But like any genre, there is always a niche crowd. They won't ever completely go away. But we aren't talking about niche crowds. We are talking about movies for the masses. And those movies are built off mega popular franchises from literature or pre-existing brands. That's why you get sequels every summer. Every now and then, a franchise crops up. PotC. Transformers. But it's hit and miss. It doesn't mean Giant Death Robots are the new thing, or the Pirates genre is back after the turd that was Cutthroat Island. The studios are capitalizing on their brand names. Avengers wasn't a brand, but a bi-product of hard work and good story telling. It's not going to always work out that way. None of the other properties really took off by themselves. Now Fox/Sony are going back to their bread and butter. I wonder what two movies are anchoring summer 2014. I think the point of the article is at what point do these movies stop becoming guaranteed money printers that we can no longer throw 200-300 million at every single one. And that day will come before the end of the decade IMO.

When a non-RDJ movie eclipses the 500 million mark, we can call them something other than a one trick pony. Right now it's all about Tony Stark. DC has yet to prove themselves outside of Batman, but luckily they have another larger than life superhero in their stable. Marvel Studios does not have that at the moment. I think 500 million is a reasonable number for Thor 2. If it can't hit that, it's a cause for concern. I don't think it hits that.

IM3 obviously. I'll give him that one.

You're not giving Marvel enough credit.

Spider-man and Batman have always been waaaaay bigger than Iron Man. So the fact that he's crushing Spider-man and beating Batman at the box office is no small feat.

And a one trick pony suggest that Marvel only had one franchise that could make money. Marvel has two franchises that can cross one billion (Avengers and Iron Man) and two that will probably cross half a billion (Thor and Captain America).

If that makes them a one trick pony then most sub-studios would give their left foot to be a "one-trick pony".

Then you look at the superhero genre as a whole an you will probably have at least eight franchises that can hit half a billion in the next few years (Avengers, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Batman, Superman, Justice League, X-men). Once you add up the sequels from these franchises your looking at a mega billion dollar industry fueled by just superheroes. Very few genres can claim such a huge flow of income. And once you had video games, toys, clothes, comics, theme parks it's clear no other genre comes close to superheroes.

You brought up westerns, I brought up 90's themed action movies. That was the thing back in my day. The spectacle movies. Con-Air, The Rock, Face/Off, movies with Expendables actors. They were the must see movies for teenage boys. Not anymore. Movies like Bourne have come in their place. It hasn't proven to be cyclic. But like any genre, there is always a niche crowd. They won't ever completely go away. But we aren't talking about niche crowds. We are talking about movies for the masses. And those movies are built off mega popular franchises from literature or pre-existing brands. That's why you get sequels every summer. Every now and then, a franchise crops up. PotC. Transformers. But it's hit and miss. It doesn't mean Giant Death Robots are the new thing, or the Pirates genre is back after the turd that was Cutthroat Island. The studios are capitalizing on their brand names. Avengers wasn't a brand, but a bi-product of hard work and good story telling. It's not going to always work out that way. None of the other properties really took off by themselves. Now Fox/Sony are going back to their bread and butter. I wonder what two movies are anchoring summer 2014. I think the point of the article is at what point do these movies stop becoming guaranteed money printers that we can no longer throw 200-300 million at every single one. And that day will come before the end of the decade IMO.

Okay so basically you're being nothing but cynical. Gotcha.

Also, I brought up Westerns as an antithesis to the superhero films, not as a comparison. I'm saying they can't be grouped into a genre like Westerns can be, or 90's action film for that matter. As I keep saying, these superhero/comic book movies encompass far too much to be labeled as such. If they wanted to make a 90's action film or Western out of a superhero film, they could. The superheros are just vehicles to drive stories into different genres, and they come with installed fanbases and multi-generational appeal. That's the brilliance of it.

As for the the movies ceasing to be guaranteed money...they never were. As you said yourself, the Avengers was built off of good storytelling and hard work, the same is true of Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men, etc. Now, however, those characters ARE brands, and ARE established, and have already been engrained into the hearts of an entire new generation who have grown up on these movies...literally, an entire generation. And that IS the mass public. It's not just the types of films, it's the CHARACTERS. That's the key difference between these superhero films and past fads, among other things. It's not just one random genre to the next, it's a promise of movies about these characters that you love and grew up with in different situations, it's not just going from one rip-off to the next. It's why James Bond has been so successful and superheros are the only other medium that has been able to capitalize off of that and realize that model as a viable business.

There's no way the "bubble" is popping this decade. Marvel has movies lined up to go through 2018, and a film doesn't just gross $1.5b and then go away 5 years later, especially not when it is built it off of specific characters that people love and want to see more of. Avengers, Batman, Spider-Man movies will continue on through the next decade and barring something catastrophically bad will continue to do well. Obviously every movie is not going to be a mega event, but they're going to at the very least be solid, consistent, and steady.

In addition to all of the above, it's also gotten to the point now where the Marvel brand can pimp their new movies and franchises, like Pixar. It used to be that only these historical characters could do well, but Marvel, thanks in part to Disney, has figured out a way to boost their entire portfolio of characters in the same way Pixar boosts its movies. Obviously things aren't always going to stay as good as they are now, but superhero movies will continue to be made and at a steady pace for the far-out foreseeable future.

Also your argument about Disney being in the hole is just silly. You completely disregard where their REAL profits come from: Merchandising. This is where the big bucks are at. Disney probably makes many time more money off of merchandising than the actual BO gross. When you see a film gross $1b+ you're actually looking at more like $3b+, and that may be conservative considering just how much of a goldmine Marvel/DC characters are in terms of merchandise. And Disney makes money off of Spider-Man merchandise as well without even having to make the movies. They've probably already made back their $4b in spades by now.

Actually box office gross generally account for 17/18 % of the entire revenue a movie generates in the new entertainment economy. Studios are taking in almost four times as much revenue from home entertainment (television, VOD, DVDs Blu-Rays) as from movie theaters because of much lower marketing costs. And of course there's merchandising. In the case of movie like the Avengers, it should make the theater gross account for around 10% or less of its revenues.

Wow just so
People who think this thing is just going to pop and go away are very much looking at this with a narrow-mind and most of the time I see them using outdated precedents to come to this conclusion. These movie are, quite literally, NEVER going to stop, for very obvious reasons, and I doubt they ever become so unpopular or stigmatized enough to where they can't make more superhero films 3-4 years after MAYBE giving them a rest. We live in a very very different world than when Batman and Robin single-handedly killed the genre for a couple years and Marvel was at the mercy of external movie studios. Marvel are self-producing their films now, and the entire reason Disney bought them was so they could do that. They're not ever going to just stop making movies. And the only other studios outside of Disney and WB who own superhero rights are contractually obligated to put out Spider-Man and X-Men films ever 2-3 years or they lose the rights. Very different times.

This is key.

There will be countless sequels and reboots of X-men, Spider-man, and Fantastic Four because Avengers proved that they're potential goldmines and this studios will do anything to avoid the rights to these golden geese reverting to Marvel.

Even if the phase two and phase three Marvel films bomb which they won't. They're the hottest series of films in Hollywood right now...BY FAR.

Actually box office gross generally account for 17/18 % of the entire revenue a movie generates in the new entertainment economy. Studios are taking in almost four times as much revenue from home entertainment (television, VOD, DVDs Blu-Rays) as from movie theaters because of much lower marketing costs. And of course there's merchandising. In the case of movie like the Avengers, it should make the theater gross account for around 10% or less of its revenues.

Ha, thanks for the info. It's even less of a factor than I thought, and Disney had to have made at least $700m in direct profits off of the gross, and that's probably a very heavy low ball.